get_epic_progress

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. The word 'Get' implies read-only behavior and the listed output fields provide some clarity, but it does not mention error handling, whether item_id must refer to an epic, or any other behavioral caveats.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that includes the action, resource, and key output fields. There is no redundant or filler content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple getter with one parameter, the description plus schema is minimally viable. It lists the return fields but leaves ambiguities like whether item_id must be an epic ID, what 'percent' represents, and how incomplete_items is structured. Without an output schema, these caveats matter.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema description for item_id is generic ('item_id parameter'), so the tool description's mention of 'epic' gives some semantic hint that item_id identifies the epic. However, it does not explicitly connect item_id to the epic or explain any value constraints, so it adds only marginal value beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('epic') and enumerates the returned stats (total, completed, percent, incomplete_items). It clearly states what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_item_metrics.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the tool should be used when wanting progress stats for an epic, but it provides no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternatives. This is adequate but not clearly differentiated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.